Has the Axe-FX II Achieved 99% amp modeling accuracy?

LZRBeam

LZRBeam

Member
Hi everyone.

I have been a modeling amp user for many years, starting with the Fender Cyber Deluxe, then moving to the AXE standard, and now I love my Axe-FX II. Over the years, I've owned only a few tube amps, so I don't have the depth of experience that many others on this forum have with all the various amps that have been built over that last 50 years or so. So this question is for the seasoned amp users out there that have a very deep well of knowledge and experience with many different amps.......

With the quantum generation firmware updates, has the accuracy of the AXE-FX II achieved the 99% accuracy level? In other words, is there anything significant left to develop with the amp models to further improve tone/feel/touch sensitivity/etc? the latest quantum firmware is so incredible, it's hard for a less experienced amp user like me to imagine it can get any better.

Love to hear all the expert's thoughts.......
 
It has for me, and I have owned/still own many tube amps. Personally, I prefer the Marshall models to my actual amps, including when I run the Axe into a power amp and then into one of my Marshall cabs. I prefer FRFR, but I have done the Axe/PowerAmp/Guitar Cab setup in a variety of playing situations.

However, I don't see myself selling off my amps and pedals. I like having lots of tools.
 
Personally, I prefer the Marshall models to my actual amps
Click to expand...
That would mean, that they are different... Which means, the models in the Axe are not yet accurate...

Here's another question: Even if amp modelling is 99% there, what about cab modelling? This whole manual thing about the speaker page does create inconsistencies with reality... Also, are IR's really accurate to a real mic'ed up cab in a room? I'm skeptical.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It depends on what you're playing. This thing is pretty astounding for clean tones, but once you start getting into breakup and high gain territory there's still room for improvement. This is just opinion of course.

It's much debated, but the high and low end on distorted tone still suffers, in my opinion, from a digital sound in top end, and a whompy low end. Also, the way the breakup sounds is still too smooth and undefined. It's gotten a lot better since the last few firmware iterations,to a point where many don't seem to be bothered by it. But I've yet to hear something as saturated sounding as, say "Silvera" by Gojira, "Psychosocial" by Slipknot, or "Vicarious" by Tool. Sure, the tone might be spot on, but the sputtering crackle just isn't there.

That said, running my Axe through the Power Station into a real cab DOES improve these qualities. Still, when I jam with guys they always say there's "something" about the top and and low end that "isn't quite right" even though the rig does sound exceptionally defined.

I guess it's just a matter of modeling being too shiny and perfect. Don't know if we'll ever see it actually "get there". Sorry if that sounds like sour grapes.
 
FreeMind said:
That would mean, that they are different... Which means, the models in the Axe are not yet accurate...

Here's another question: Even if amp modelling is 99% there, what about cab modelling? This whole manual thing about the speaker page does create inconsistencies with reality... Also, are IR's really accurate to a real mic'ed up cab in a room? I'm skeptical.
Click to expand...

You're right to be skeptical. There's an inherent "smoothing" effect when listening to an amp through an IR as it just doesn't capture the speaker movement as accurately as a live mic'ed tone. But I've also heard stunning examples of tube amps through IRs and frankly, it sounds amazing by comparison. No, I think it's something about the way the way the amp modeling interacts with fractal's proprietary IR system. There are countless examples of more lively sounding amp recordings through IRs.
 
I am sure Cliff will have another Epiphany ,but its damn good ,I use AX8 in the studio yesterday , a 5153 50 watt blue , and a Dizzy ch3
with heir matching cabs from 3sigma, we listen back to the same track with my old setup Engl and Baron tube amps.
The AX8 simply was bigger . cleaner and had more definition and mixed with drums quickly.
I had worked on the patches ,so noise gates low cuts were all set , these are things i have to do after with my tube amps anyway.
The other thing to note was the time it took to track 2 guitars through 2 cabs ,2 speaker types and 2 mics was basically minutes vs hours of having to mic ,isolate , carry and move cabs ,,miles of cables running from room to room losing signal .it was a great experience
 
Randalljax said:
I am sure Cliff will have another Epiphany ,but its damn good ,I use AX8 in the studio yesterday , a 5153 50 watt blue , and a Dizzy ch3
with heir matching cabs from 3sigma, we listen back to the same track with my old setup Engl and Baron tube amps.
The AX8 simply was bigger . cleaner and had more definition and mixed with drums quickly.
I had worked on the patches ,so noise gates low cuts were all set , these are things i have to do after with my tube amps anyway.
The other thing to note was the time it took to track 2 guitars through 2 cabs ,2 speaker types and 2 mics was basically minutes vs hours of having to mic ,isolate , carry and move cabs ,,miles of cables running from room to room losing signal .it was a great experience
Click to expand...

So what you're actually saying is that the convenience of the Axe-fx II outweighs your abilities to mic a cab and have access to lots of tones.

I've got a buddy who recently picked up a reactive load box and has, after 2 30-minute sessions, sent me recordings of his dual rectifier through the load box and high quality impulse responses. He is quite happy with this setup and I can see why. Now he can skip the problematic aspects of setting up mic'ed up cabs (he runs a studio) and though he's skeptical, it sounds better to my ears than the last several things he's done with the Axe-fx II. That's not saying his Axe recordings are bad, mind you. But they've got this polished sound and a thinness by comparison to what I just heard from him - and that's after just a short while of tinkering with it. He said it's basically "plug and play".

It's understandable that guys like the Axe for what it is. Tons of different amps and IR capabilities as well as effects. But while it's tone is good and it's endless variety of amps to choose from are amazing, it still doesn't sound the same as a good tube amp. Sorry, not sorry.
 
FreeMind said:
That would mean, that they are different... Which means, the models in the Axe are not yet accurate...

Here's another question: Even if amp modelling is 99% there, what about cab modelling? This whole manual thing about the speaker page does create inconsistencies with reality... Also, are IR's really accurate to a real mic'ed up cab in a room? I'm skeptical.
Click to expand...


Well for one thing, thing don't have to be different per say. Its just that the Axe can create tones that would require the amp to be playing at a physical volume level that isn't always possible. I could probably create the same tone on the Axe as trying to play, say a JCM800 2204 at "late night" volume, and it won't sound good either.

As for "mic'd up cab in a room" your confusing 2 different sounds. The sound of a physical cab in a room is going to sound different when your standing in that room playing hearing it, than if you were to stick a mic in front of it and record it. Personally I think "cab in room" tone is 99% useless because no one but the guitarist hears that sound and you can't share it. I care what my guitar sounds like over a venue PA system and what it sounds like recorded, and in those cases the Axe sounds just like sticking a mic in front of it.

If you want the exact sound of a given amp cranked up and how your used to hearing it standing in front of a speaker cab in your bedroom, rehearsal space etc, then stick with your hardware amp and cab. If you want tonal versatility, created recorded/live tones, lots of great effects and more, then go for the axe.
 
That is a very hard question to answer. It depends on the specific model. Some models might be there 75% or so and other 90% or whatever.
Personally I don't care that much because I have never owned the real amp on which the model is based on. Also depends on how you use it; with a real guitar cab or studio monitors etc. Rather than trying to find a 100% accurate model I am just trying to get the best sound out of the Axe. I only use 3 amp models and 3 cabs or so.
 
The question doesn't make sense.

99% of what? for amps owned by FAS, then accuracy is what? an A/B of the real amp and the model? test measurements of the Fractal vs. the same of the real amp? using a real cab? IR? listening with the real amp in isolation? monitors? etc.

What about amp models from schematics or the FAS amp models... 99% of what?

For all of us, without access to the real amps that the models are created from, then 99% doesn't have a real meaning.

For me, it's do the amp models sound good to me and do they inspire my playing music.

If you do own real amps yourself, and I do, then I can judge whether or not the Fractal amp models are realistic but 99%? Can't be done.
 
I just wish that Cliff and company would build a competitor to positive grid Bias for IPad Pro. Bias fx lets you see the cpu which usually is around 16%. I would love an amp sim that uses 80% of the IPAD Pros Cpu. Better algorithms. I'm hoping someday.

On the topic, Cliff is always messing the power amp section, I assume he will always find something to make better. He has been oftly quiet the last few months. So who knows.
 
Speculum Speculorum said:
So what you're actually saying is that the convenience of the Axe-fx II outweighs your abilities to mic a cab and have access to lots of tones.

I've got a buddy who recently picked up a reactive load box and has, after 2 30-minute sessions, sent me recordings of his dual rectifier through the load box and high quality impulse responses. He is quite happy with this setup and I can see why. Now he can skip the problematic aspects of setting up mic'ed up cabs (he runs a studio) and though he's skeptical, it sounds better to my ears than the last several things he's done with the Axe-fx II. That's not saying his Axe recordings are bad, mind you. But they've got this polished sound and a thinness by comparison to what I just heard from him - and that's after just a short while of tinkering with it. He said it's basically "plug and play".

It's understandable that guys like the Axe for what it is. Tons of different amps and IR capabilities as well as effects. But while it's tone is good and it's endless variety of amps to choose from are amazing, it still doesn't sound the same as a good tube amp. Sorry, not sorry.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say compromise for convenience ,I like the sound of the Axe and that quality you say of clean and produced is kinda what I/we go for . The tones you hear on records are not the amp in the room ,they have a ton of multi band compression post eq and filtering .

Sometimes the smoothness and less raw sound works in context of the mix, Sometimes my tube amps are harder to mix because of certain freq and elements that are more pronounced that sit in my singers vocal range. So the Axe for me is easier to get to fit with the other instruments..

I go with the old Ed VH statement if it sounds good it is good . When I listen to Guitar Jon (fractal member) recorded clips I LOVE his guitar sound and its all Fractal and (a great set of ears obviously) .but i don't think its any weaker tone wise than bands using real amps to me
The New Sixx am is all Kemper again to my ears sounds great . but YMMV
 
Cliff has done a real amp with mic-ed cab comparison with axe fx and i would say 99% spot on. And IR's are also very close to the tone of the cab. With the side note that the will sound the same if you compare it to the same. And if you compare apples with apples.....

But indeed is the question as to what you mean with 99% as even real amps & cabs from different manfactory-dates will not be 99% same. Even if the are same models and specs. And lot of amps are modded or biased to taste and with AXE FX you can easily make these tweaks and mods.

Too me (played a lot of different tube amps) AXE FX is really close and with tweaking with parameters (which you can also do with a real amp, but will cost a lot of money if you can not do this yourselve) I have found some very nice tones which I liked and never played my tube amps again.

Note: for in the room feeling (meaning NOT mic-ed) i still prefer the real cab's as IR's are all mic-ed and will not give the same sound or feel as non mic-ed from the cab in the room sound/feel. But others like FRFR.

BL: Does it really matter? AXE FX is really really close to real amps and if your ears like the sound and you have fun playing, does it really matter?
 
I haven't compromise my tone at all by switching to the AxeFX. My former rig was a very nice Boogie Lonestar, with a bunch of boutique pedals. I knew I'd be able to get fantastic tones from the AxeFX, and have learned to use it well enough that I sold all my tube amps and nearly all my pedals, which are now on my "grab and go" board for jamming and small ensemble gigs. For touring and recording, I only use the AxeFX, and I have access to some amazing gear in the studio!
Getting great tones is definitely a process of learning to make the best use of your gear. The AxeFX is so versatile and musical that I never feel limited by its capabilities.
 
lqdsnddist said:
As for "mic'd up cab in a room" your confusing 2 different sounds.
Click to expand...

I'm not.
What I mean, there is probably a difference between when you mic a cab that is in a room, versus, when you mic a cab that is simply nowhere. The real room reverb - If it's not properly simulated through IR's, it's not perfect.
 
FreeMind said:
I'm not.
What I mean, there is probably a difference between when you mic a cab that is in a room, versus, when you mic a cab that is simply nowhere. The real room reverb - If it's not properly simulated through IR's, it's not perfect.
Click to expand...
All the IRs we use are of real cabs in real rooms. Close mic'ing eliminates most of the room's impact on the sound. The IRs we use are highly accurate and representative of the in-real-life situation.
 
FreeMind said:
This whole manual thing about the speaker page does create inconsistencies with reality.
Click to expand...
I agree, and here's why.

It doesn't actually respond to a physical amp in the same way that a speaker would in a cabinet.

There's a special relationship that between a speakers in a speaker cabinet and the output transformer of a tube amp. That back and forth relationship between the output stage of the amp and the speaker is measurable (Impedance curve).

The impedance curve considerably affects the way that an amp sounds and responds. Depending on what type of cabinet you have that speaker loaded in, will actually change the impedance curve. The impedance curve affects the tone of your amp and the way that it responds.

So, if every speaker and cabinet combination has it's own special impedance curve, how do you account for all of those and put them into the Axe-Fx's speaker page?

You can't.

Cliff probably modeled an impedance curve for each amp model and put that as the default into that model's speaker page.

So, those resonant peaks might not be lined up with the IRs that we use.

However, it's close.

But until some breakthrough in technology comes along, this is where we're at with the Axe-Fx.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom